🚀 go-pugleaf

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> Dymicks ethics
> 
> I was in the Marion shopping centre (Adelaide) today when I noticed some books for sale at the entrance to the Dymicks Book Shop.
> 
> $3.95 each or 4 for $10.00
> 
> I had a look at a few tittles and decided to buy a book by Miora Rayner - Rooted Democracy. I reached into my pocket and pulled out $4.00 in gold to pay only to be told $9.00. I questioned the amount and pointed to the sign. Wherein I was told "unless otherwise marked". I was angry and suggested this was misleading advertising. He pointed to the sign and I saw the words  <font small> unless otherwise marked </font>. He said no it isn't. I said maybe not legally but in spirit. He said "thank you I think you can leave".
> 
> I was annoyed and threw the book down and walked out. Is this legal? If so it is certainly not ethical. I looked at only a few tittles and did not notice any that were not marked. I do not know if every book was marked but I saw no evidence to the contrary from the few books I looked at.
> 

I think you're right, it's not illegal, it is misleading advertising,
but not false advertising, which would be illegal.  I think it would
also be illegal if they had not put any books there which you could buy
for 4 for $10 or $3, but I'm not sure.

I find this a lot, especially because I am vision impaired (or whatever
the trendy PC word of the month is :)  I hardly ever see those things
they write in small print at the bottom of signs, and sometimes I find
myself in exactly the situation you were in.

I've discovered that continually shops will try to sell you the
shareware version of a piece of software, claiming it is the full
version - this is not always the shops fault however, as often the
packaging is misleadingly marked also.  

I had a (relatively) good experience with Ozzie Discount Software a few
months ago (where have they gone? - they used to have several Melbourne
stores, but they all seem to have closed), I bought a boxed 'collection'
of software for $60 - it said on the box that it had the full versions
inside.  When I got home and installed it, I discovered only a couple of
the 6 or 8 programs were actually full versions - The two programs I had
mostly bought it for were not the two :).

After talking to the store manager, and telling him of my problem, he
explained that although he had no legal obligation to take the software
back, as it was not 'faulty'.  He would let me exchange it for something
else, which I did.  Only one of the programs on the box was labelled as
shareware - it was supposed to be a bonus, as the full game to which it
was a brand new sequel was included.

> This has been a rant I wanted to get off my chest. I took the pre caution of being anonymous because I do not know the law well enough to know if this is libel. Needless to say I will be boycotting Dymicks in future.

I think you'd be safe from prosecution for Libel, all you've done is
told what happened.

Regards.

Quentin.
-- 
May God stand between/ Quentin Christensen
you and harm in all / ogo1@mynx.wow.aust.com
the empty places   / ICQ # 12889482
you must walk     / http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mynx/quentisl/index.html

> I think you're right, it's not illegal, it is misleading advertising,
> but not false advertising, which would be illegal.  I think it would
> also be illegal if they had not put any books there which you could buy
> for 4 for $10 or $3, but I'm not sure.

yeah it would be illegal if none of the books were out there for the special.

> I find this a lot, especially because I am vision impaired (or whatever
> the trendy PC word of the month is :)

prolly "small misleading fontally challenged" :)

>  I hardly ever see those things
> they write in small print at the bottom of signs, and sometimes I find
> myself in exactly the situation you were in.

it should be written clearly otherwise it can border on false advertising.  I don't know if there are any laws specifically concerning people with poor vision.
  Also there a *far too many* signs everywhere that people just stop reading them and then look really stupid when they ask the shop assistant a question and they point to the sign as if to say "Dont you read signs?  We put them up so you don't bother us"


> > This has been a rant I wanted to get off my chest. I took the pre caution of being anonymous because I do not know the law well enough to know if this is libel. Needless to say I will be boycotting Dymicks in future.
>
> I think you'd be safe from prosecution for Libel, all you've done is
> told what happened.

yeah you are quite right :)


--

Russ (shadow182@hotmail.com)
----------------------------------
*** The Ozemail Debate Site (Beta) is online at
*** http://derek.jenkins.net/ozemail/index.html.
----------------------------------
"That's what makes it such a nice place. You just got the sharp end of the pineapple for a change."
Chris Lewis on one of his stranger days :P
-------------
"Like I have said repeatedly, you've got a problem with your 'seems' machinery boy."
Said repeatedly by Rod Speed using the F6 key
-------------
"But if you ever call me a "King Of Liars" again, you will urgently need legal advice...I am not "threatenining" anyone."
Ron Huttner (aka 'King Of Liars')
-------------
"E=MCC which could explain why the Marylebone Cricket Club is now known as England"
Farmer 3:16 (which apparently you cannot understand if you have been under a rock for 2 years)
-------------
"And I think my nicknames are quite kewl compared to Shadow what sort of nickname is that."
Quote written with the same 'punctuation' as used by ChewME :P
-------------
"How come I don't have a quote in the sig?"
David Proctor (known as "The Proctologist" to Ron Huttner aka "King Of Liars")
-------------
"Don't worry... neither do I. And I'm one of the most quotable people in oz.debate!"
Josh B (also the most "modest" person in ozemail.debate)
-------------
"btw: shadow: what happened to me and DJ? :("
Mark (one of the youngest Ozemail.users/ozemail.debaters =])
----------------------------------

And by virtue of what authority would it be illegal?
Could you please refer to the legislation or case law that determined this
to be the case?

shadow <shadow182@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3695791E.555C6E6F@hotmail.com...

>yeah it would be illegal if none of the books were out there for the
special.

Darkside wrote:
> 
> And by virtue of what authority would it be illegal?
> Could you please refer to the legislation or case law that determined this
> to be the case?
> 

I don't *know*, I just guessed it would be false advertising if they
said "4 for $10" *really small font* "unless otherwise marked".  and
then didn't have any books that weren't "otherwise marked", although I
guess it would be easy enough for them to say that there were books
there, but they must have all been sold...

In any case, it is *MISLEADING* and not very nice, not that that seems
to stop a lot of businesses these days who seem to employ every dodgy,
or underhanded scheme to increase their profits.  I'm well aware that
any business's bottom line is profit, but there are better ways to
achieve that than by using misleading and almost illegal advertising /
methods.

Quentin.
-- 
May God stand between/ Quentin Christensen
you and harm in all / ogo1@mynx.wow.aust.com
the empty places   / ICQ # 12889482
you must walk     / http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mynx/quentisl/index.html

Sorry Dude,

I was talking about the post by "Shadow".  I agree with you that it is most
likely.  You stated that you weren't sure, but Shadow indicated that it
"WOULD BE" illegal.

My post was directed at him, requesting the basis for his definitive
statement, rather than you for indicating a belief.

Regards

Darkside

Quentin Christensen <ogo1@mynx.wow.aust.com> wrote in message
news:36957F4B.DDC15163@mynx.wow.aust.com...

>I don't *know*, I just guessed it would be false advertising if they
>said "4 for $10" *really small font* "unless otherwise marked".  and
>then didn't have any books that weren't "otherwise marked", although I
>guess it would be easy enough for them to say that there were books
>there, but they must have all been sold...
must walk     / http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mynx/quentisl/index.html

John writes:

Anonymous wrote:

> Dymicks ethics
>
> I was in the Marion shopping centre (Adelaide) today when I noticed some books for sale at the entrance to the Dymicks Book Shop.
>
> $3.95 each or 4 for $10.00
>
> I had a look at a few tittles and decided to buy a book by Miora Rayner - Rooted Democracy. I reached into my pocket and pulled out $4.00 in gold to pay only to be told $9.00. I questioned the amount and pointed to the sign. Wherein I was told "unless otherwise marked". I was angry and suggested this was misleading advertising. He pointed to the sign and I saw the words  <font small> unless otherwise marked </font>. He said no it isn't. I said maybe not legally but in spirit. He said "thank you I think you can leave".
>
> I was annoyed and threw the book down and walked out. Is this legal? If so it is certainly not ethical. I looked at only a few tittles and did not notice any that were not marked. I do not know if every book was marked but I saw no evidence to the contrary from the few books I looked at.
>
> This has been a rant I wanted to get off my chest. I took the pre caution of being anonymous because I do not know the law well enough to know if this is libel. Needless to say I will be boycotting Dymicks in future.

 While clearly it isn't a real case of bait advertising it is one 
of those little things in life that we all have to get used to at 
some point or other you know if they didn't do that you would never 
have gotten annoyed and not wrote about it.

But seriously you have to just sit and bear it. That kind of signage 
is just one of those little things that we all have to put up with. 
There really isn't a lot you can do about it legal, or otherwise.


--
When life gets you down.
It's time to do the wacky!


John D Leister
Jogging through my homepage at the following nice servers.
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/shores/6340
This one loads faster.
http://www.senet.com.au/~johndk/index.htm
Running up to my mailbox at:
johndk@senet.com.au

Anonymous wrote in message <199901071342.OAA19741@replay.com>...
>Dymicks ethics
>
>I was in the Marion shopping centre (Adelaide) today when I noticed some
books for sale at the entrance to the Dymicks Book Shop.
>
>$3.95 each or 4 for $10.00
>
>I had a look at a few tittles and decided to buy a book by Miora Rayner -
Rooted Democracy. I reached into my pocket and pulled out $4.00 in gold to
pay only to be told $9.00. I questioned the amount and pointed to the sign.
Wherein I was told "unless otherwise marked". I was angry and suggested this
was misleading advertising. He pointed to the sign and I saw the words
<font small> unless otherwise marked </font>. He said no it isn't. I said
maybe not legally but in spirit. He said "thank you I think you can leave".
>
>I was annoyed and threw the book down and walked out. Is this legal? If so
it is certainly not ethical. I looked at only a few tittles and did not
notice any that were not marked. I do not know if every book was marked but
I saw no evidence to the contrary from the few books I looked at.
>
>This has been a rant I wanted to get off my chest. I took the pre caution
of being
> anonymous because I do not know the law well enough to know if this is
libel.
> Needless to say I will be boycotting Dymicks in future.


We are aware of another type of unlawful action (*not* by Dymocks)
that is ignored by the relavent SA Gov't enforcement dep't, on the
grounds that:

  "It is not possible to allocate investigative resources
   to every matter brought to our attention..."

(It was an unlawful advert to encourage people to play
a venue's Poker Machines).

I suppose business has a pretty free rein in South Australia.

EXCEPT, of course, those selling products with good
Value-For-Money (e.g. the raw foodstuffs for preparing
a meal at home; supermarkets must close at 6pm here,
apparently to encourage frustrated shoppers to eat out
a lttle more often... *or* pay excessive prices at servo's
"deli" type shops...).

If anything can save the dwindling business & trade in
South Australia, it's NOT unethical business practices.

It would be to educate more of S.A.'s people to demand
Value-for-Money... from Business & Gov't alike.

When both types of enterprise lift their games (as a
result of strong, consistent and continued demands
for V-f-M), visitors to the state would *also* notice
the same... and return visits and/or business would
quite naturally follow...

One of S.A.'s real growth industries - Pawn Shops -
gets to charge 20% - 25% (or more, FAIK) as their
MONTHLY interest rates for "short-term" loans...

Yep... that's between 240% and 300% per annum!

I thought most civilised democracies have Usary Laws
to prohibit such "loan shark" rates of interest.

With Poker Machines being installed in S.A. at the
rate of 37 per month (way too many for a small state),
and such lucrative interest rates for those who lose
too much, et al. here... well, it seems like S.A. is on
a losing streak... EXCEPT, of course, for those in
gov't... who can still depend on getting a New Car
(if their position is deemed to warrant it) every 1.5
years...

I look forward to a day when people here realise
that their interests have long been ignored...
and it is up to them to demand Value-for-Money
in all matters of business & government....

If not now, When? - Talmud

Anonymous wrote in message <199901071342.OAA19741@replay.com>...
>
>Dymicks ethics
>
> I was in the Marion shopping centre (Adelaide) today
> when I noticed some books for sale at the entrance
> to the Dymicks Book Shop.
>
> $3.95 each or 4 for $10.00
>
> I had a look at a few tittles and decided
> to buy a book by Miora Rayner - Rooted
> Democracy.

> I reached into my pocket and pulled out
> $4.00 in gold to pay only to be told $9.00.

> I questioned the amount and pointed to the sign.
> Wherein I was told "unless otherwise marked".

<snip>

Here's one excerpt from the Law (or, Cole sLaw, as it *should*
be known - at least in S.A. - for the effect on trading it has, due to
general non-enforcment):

<quote>

FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 65
Bait advertising

65. (1) A person shall not, in trade or commerce, advertise for supply at a
specified price, goods or services if there are reasonable grounds, of which
the person is aware or ought reasonably to be aware, for believing that the
person will not be able to offer for supply those goods or services at that
price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having
regard to the nature of the market in which the person carries on business
and
the nature of the advertisement.

(2) A person who has, in trade or commerce, advertised goods or services for
supply at a specified price shall offer such goods or services for supply at
that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable
having
regard to the nature of the market in which the person carries on business
and
the nature of the advertisement.

(3) In a prosecution of a person in relation to a failure to offer goods or
services to another person (in this subsection referred to as
the "customer") in accordance with subsection (2), it is a defence if the
person establishes that-

   (a)  the person offered to supply, or to procure another person to
supply,
        goods or services of the kind advertised to the customer within a
        reasonable time, in a reasonable quantity and at the advertised
price;
        or

   (b)  the person offered to supply immediately, or to procure another
person
        to supply within a reasonable time, equivalent goods or services to
        the customer in a reasonable quantity and at the price at which the
        first mentioned goods or services were advertised, and, in either
        case, where the offer was accepted by the customer, the person has
so
        supplied, or procured another person to supply, goods or services.

<unquote>

That's right, kiddies!  S.A. law specifies the defences for the business
(otherwise they'd have to pay more to their lawyers... ;)

...but offer not much help to the would-be customer.

As a newcomer to S.A. I have often been shocked
at the low standards of business ethics to be found
here:

  - an Adelaide Central Market cheese merchant's
    pre-packaged cheeses incorrectly prices (in the
    merchant's favor) - noticed twice by customer &
    once by the enforcement dep't... the merchant is
    not fined (When confronted by the customer,
    the customer is denied service and security is
    called)

 - one of the newspapers refuses to allow certain
   abbreviations (clear to the market being addressed)
   whose use would reduce the cost of the advert.

I think it may have to do with a feeling that anybody with half a brain
should be in business here...

and - if you're in business *here* - who has time to worry about ethics?

Just getting people to buy your products or services
can consume your Life (or so some would have one
believe; this may well be true in the book market).

In fairness, with all the problems this state has...
a $4/book advert DOES rate low on the impor-
tance scale...

But, having said that, that facts that would-be buyers receive:

  1) so LITTLE benefit from all the verbage in S.A. legislation and
  2) so LITTLE useful response from S.A. gov't...

very likely contributes significantly to the justifiable mistrust
such customers feel & express for business & gov't here...

It is apparently "important" to keep even the people that play the
state's many poker machine in the dark about:

 - their chances of winning (i.e. probabilities are not displayed), and
 - how to interpret such data, generally.

Today's radio brought us the voice of a teenager in Whyalla...
telling us that the last public swimming pool in his town
has recently been closed and - considering previous closings
of other recreational facilities for kids of his age - there seems
to be nothing to do up there... except for graffiti and driving
around town... (his words).

A state-run centralised educational system (rather than distribu-
ted power, e.g. in the hands of local School Boards) cannot but
give country people the feeling of sheep being herded by an
unresponsive central authority...  The result:

If no one "provides" a swimming pool or video-game centre,
kids tell each other there's nothing to do in Whyalla...

Poker Machines are not unknown to Whyalla... lots of money
can be found for these culture-killers...

The problems are easy to identify...
and just as easy to solve creatively.

In short, you are not alone in your frustration...

On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:26:49 +1100, "Darkside"
<darkside144@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And by virtue of what authority would it be illegal?
>Could you please refer to the legislation or case law that determined this
>to be the case?
>
How about
TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 52; SECT 53(e)
??
>shadow <shadow182@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3695791E.555C6E6F@hotmail.com...
>
>>yeah it would be illegal if none of the books were out there for the
>special.
>
>

uncle@omen.net.au wrote:

: > There really isn't a lot you can do about it legal, or otherwise.

: Oh yes there is.  Leaving an item on the shelf sends a clear
: message to the merchant.  If *everyone* would walk out for
: the same reason......
 
  The only trouble is that these days you just don't deal with the merchant
or vendor in most cases - instead you're stuck with 'lackies' who don't
have the authority to make deals or discounts, and who don't really even
care about the profitable running of the organisation in the long term ...

If the retailer NEVER had any books on display at the advertised price,
then I believe this would constitute false & misleading conduct under
the (Federal) Trade Practices Act. Contact the ACCC.

If they had very few books at the advertised price (and these sold out
say, on the first morning - or first day), then as a consumer you should
demand a "rain check", ie. that the retailer get you add'l stock of that
product and sell it to you at the advertised price at a later time
> >
> > And by virtue of what authority would it be illegal?
> > Could you please refer to the legislation or case law that determined this
> > to be the case?
> >
> 
> I don't *know*, I just guessed it would be false advertising if they
> said "4 for $10" *really small font* "unless otherwise marked".  and
> then didn't have any books that weren't "otherwise marked", although I
> guess it would be easy enough for them to say that there were books
> there, but they must have all been sold...
> 
> In any case, it is *MISLEADING* and not very nice, not that that seems
> to stop a lot of businesses these days who seem to employ every dodgy,
> or underhanded scheme to increase their profits.  I'm well aware that
> any business's bottom line is profit, but there are better ways to
> achieve that than by using misleading and almost illegal advertising /
> methods.
> 
> Quentin.
> --
> May God stand between/ Quentin Christensen
> you and harm in all / ogo1@mynx.wow.aust.com
> the empty places   / ICQ # 12889482
> you must walk     / http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mynx/quentisl/index.html

The Organiser <gpike@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:3697F4AC.2ADA@hotmail.com...

> If the retailer NEVER had any books on display at the advertised
> price, then I believe this would constitute false & misleading conduct
> under the (Federal) Trade Practices Act. Contact the ACCC.

> If they had very few books at the advertised price (and these sold out
> say, on the first morning - or first day), then as a consumer you should
> demand a "rain check", ie. that the retailer get you add'l stock of that
> product and sell it to you at the advertised price at a later time

No legal requirement for them to do a rain check.

There are some constraints on them deliberately running out of
what is advertised tho. With the same recourse as the first case.